https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266282 Exemption entries for cannula were construed broadly to cover intra venous cannula, because the expression "blood vessels" was treated as an independent term and not restricted by the qualifier attached to "similar veins"; the exemption claim on that point was therefore accepted. Central venous catheters were treated as distinct in structure and function from cannula, and the separate catheter entries in the notifications meant they could not be read into the cannula entry; the exemption claim on that point was therefore rejected. The result was only partial relief, limited to intra venous cannula. en-us Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Oct 2015 08:27:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266282 Exemption entries for cannula were construed broadly to cover intra venous cannula, because the expression "blood vessels" was treated as an independent term and not restricted by the qualifier attached to "similar veins"; the exemption claim on that point was therefore accepted. Central venous catheters were treated as distinct in structure and function from cannula, and the separate catheter entries in the notifications meant they could not be read into the cannula entry; the exemption claim on that point was therefore rejected. The result was only partial relief, limited to intra venous cannula. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266282